Calorie restriction more important for weightloss?

[ssandra]

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds - CNN.com

Interesting article. Not conclusive evidence of course, but it is in line with my own experiences when it comes to weight loss...

[Lifeisamazing]

Let's make a study where a group of people eat quality food and the same number of calories as the other group that eats most of its calories from junk food.

My arguments against the experiment:
- Health is long-term
- It's actually not about weight loss but fat loss

[ssandra]

If you read the article... He lost fat as well. Also, bad cholesterol went down, good cholesterol went up...

[Lifeisamazing]

Originally Posted by ssandra

If you read the article... He lost fat as well. Also, bad cholesterol went down, good cholesterol went up...

Yup, he did, but how much muscle mass did he also lose? Let me explain you this better. Imagine that you look like a big apple. You decide to lose weight, you lose a bunch of fat with also a lot of muscle mass. Now you look like a smaller apple. You don't want to look like an apple, you want to look better, not just smaller. That's why the goal is to maintain or increase muscle mass and lose fat.

You can't really decide whether something is healthy or not based on an 8-week experiment. Health is long-term. Also, he measured so few things. Cholesterol doesn't really show much, especially the way they measure it. LDL includes many particle sizes of which smaller ones are worse. Do we have any idea how that changed? Maybe his small LDL particles actually went up?

That's why I hate this experiment. Most people think that this means eat all the ♥♥♥♥ you want as long as you don't eat too much. So do you eat candy all day now and supplement that diet with mineral and vitamin supplements?

[GregD]

hi, first of all thanks for sharing this, a very interesting article.

my comments:

• 1 very bad point was made there "not the nutritional value of the food". For long term health nutritional value is important.
• It should also be noted that if you just switch to healthy foods such as green vegetables and continue to consume EXACTLY the same calories you will lose fat and this is exactly because of "nutritional value of the food"

To Lifeisamazing:
I would actually argue against your comments. You are, of course, right, but note that people who are very overweight, want to, and gain a lot from, coming down to a health weight even at the expense of thier muscle loss. This health and self-esteem benefit / increase is a lot more important than the muscle image you advocate for.

[Lifeisamazing]

Originally Posted by GregD

To Lifeisamazing:
I would actually argue against your comments. You are, of course, right, but note that people who are very overweight, want to, and gain a lot from, coming down to a health weight even at the expense of thier muscle loss. This health and self-esteem benefit / increase is a lot more important than the muscle image you advocate for.

Exactly! They don't care about muscle loss, but I say that they should care about it. Do you think that muscle mass is important only for good looks? Which is better for an overweight person in terms of health and self-esteem: to lose 10 pounds of which 7.5 is fat, or 10 pounds of which 5 is fat?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by GregD

hi, first of all thanks for sharing this, a very interesting article.

my comments:

• 1 very bad point was made there "not the nutritional value of the food". For long term health nutritional value is important.
• It should also be noted that if you just switch to healthy foods such as green vegetables and continue to consume EXACTLY the same calories you will lose fat and this is exactly because of "nutritional value of the food"

To Lifeisamazing:
I would actually argue against your comments. You are, of course, right, but note that people who are very overweight, want to, and gain a lot from, coming down to a health weight even at the expense of thier muscle loss. This health and self-esteem benefit / increase is a lot more important than the muscle image you advocate for.

Yes, but why do they have to choose one or the other?

[russianrocket]

He lost a whopping 16 lbs of muscle... It would take me quiet awhile to gain that much. You'd think that he'd rather lose just 11 lbs, and keep the 16 lbs of muscle, and get even better results then losing 27 total lbs. Even on a SEVERE diet, you should stay around 50% muscle and 50% fat loss. This guy didn't just restrict calories, but he starved himself. Of course you'll lose some fat along the way. He needs to find a different job, if this is what he considers nutrition.


Oh, and for WEIGHT loss, calorie restrictions is the best way to do it. So I agree with him there. You don't need to be a professor to know that if you eat less, you'll weigh less. If you really want to lose weight, just eat a few hundred calories a day. If fat loss is your goal, then we have a different conversation at hand.

[Fergal Emmanuel]

Calorie restriction is the most important part in weight reduction. Everybody knows that the number of calories we eat must be less than what our body uses. We need to know how many calories our body needs to maintain our target weight. Then reduce that by 30% so our body can burn excess fat. Cutting calories through dietary changes seems to promote weight loss more effectively than does exercise and physical activity. But physical activity also is important in weight control.

[GregD]

To:
Lifeisamazing + russianrocket

I say again that you are both correct in theory.
I just want to express that people who are "big" already have so many difficulties with their weight that they don't mind losing both fat and muscle just to be able to fit in smaller size cloths and have less damaging health consequences.

For example there is a person I care about who is 30+ BMI and honestly as long as she can achieve below 25 just to get more motivation, less depression, better health I do not care at all if that 5+ BMI is made of both fat and muscle.

After getting to a more or less decent weight (but still overweight) then only let's worry about muscle.

I hope you can understand this.
Thanks.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by GregD

To:
Lifeisamazing + russianrocket

I say again that you are both correct in theory.
I just want to express that people who are "big" already have so many difficulties with their weight that they don't mind losing both fat and muscle just to be able to fit in smaller size cloths and have less damaging health consequences.

For example there is a person I care about who is 30+ BMI and honestly as long as she can achieve below 25 just to get more motivation, less depression, better health I do not care at all if that 5+ BMI is made of both fat and muscle.

After getting to a more or less decent weight (but still overweight) then only let's worry about muscle.

I hope you can understand this.
Thanks.

Yea, I understand that a person who was already willing to let them selves get overweight, does not actually care what they do to their body in their attempts to get skinny, just as long as that magical number on the scale, goes down.

Me, I give people more power then that. Seeing that you lost 10 lbs of fat, would motivate me much more then losing 7 lbs of fat and 9 pounds of muscle. Your thinking, is the reason that diet conpanies and weight loss pills, are so popular.

[Solneman]

I agree with GregD.

I used to be heavily overweight (BMI 40). I knew (or believed to know) what was the best way to loose weight: A combination of exercise and changing my eating habits. But, I never succeeded, basically because exercise felt like torture with all that extra weight. I was frustrated and thought I could never make it.

One day I decided not to bother about the "theory" anymore. I ate whatever I wanted. I just stayed about 20% below the calories my body needed to maintain its weight. I lost weight very quickly: 25 kg / 55 lbs within a couple of months.

The experience of this weight loss and the health benefits I gained were a major motivation to keep me on track. After loosing some more weight I started exercising (and enjoyed it) and took steps to improve my diet. Now I'm almost normal weight and in quite decent shape.

My point is: It might be better to start the easiest way, but getting started and experiencing results. Somestimes to know what is best discourages you from doing what is good.

Of course, russianrocket, I should have known better in the first place not to gain so much weight. But, this knowledge didn't help me when I was in the situation.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Solneman

I agree with GregD.

I used to be heavily overweight (BMI 40). I knew (or believed to know) what was the best way to loose weight: A combination of exercise and changing my eating habits. But, I never succeeded, basically because exercise felt like torture with all that extra weight. I was frustrated and thought I could never make it.

One day I decided not to bother about the "theory" anymore. I ate whatever I wanted. I just stayed about 20% below the calories my body needed to maintain its weight. I lost weight very quickly: 25 kg / 55 lbs within a couple of months.

The experience of this weight loss and the health benefits I gained were a major motivation to keep me on track. After loosing some more weight I started exercising (and enjoyed it) and took steps to improve my diet. Now I'm almost normal weight and in quite decent shape.

My point is: It might be better to start the easiest way, but getting started and experiencing results. Somestimes to know what is best discourages you from doing what is good.

Of course, russianrocket, I should have known better in the first place not to gain so much weight. But, this knowledge didn't help me when I was in the situation.

I never tried to say that you should have known better. Just that, you knew getting over weight was unhealthy, and that someone who got unhealthy in the first place, doesn't care about losing weight in an unhealthy way. Which, I feel is wrong to do. Doing it in an unhealthy way, messes with your head, and will allow most people to gain the weight right back. The second that initial weight loss thrill wears off. Some people manage to do it, but the rest, stay on an unending yoyo diet. It's all about " quick fixes", because people want something quickly, a lot of it, and for no effort.

No one said you had to exercise, let alone to the point of it being torture.

[BillyTheAdult]

I'm a bit reluctant to dip my toes in the water of this debate as I am not the expert some of you are, but as I have mentioned in several other threads and posts I am doing the slow carb diet.

I do not even keep track of my calories, I just eat high quality food (beans, vegetables, and lean protein.) I think it is arguable that I eat more than I used to and I have lost weight and fat and gained muscle. People are telling me on a regular basis how much better I look and I have reduced the amount of exercise I do, in addition to eating whatever I want one day a week (and I really go all out.) It seems to me that this would support the claim that eating better food is more important that calorie restriction.

That being said I have no doubt that calorie restriction is also an effective means. One of my coworkers, who has a horrible diet, has also lost weight by not changing her diet at all but just eating smaller portions.

edit: After the initial shock of my diet change, I actually rather enjoy my current diet as well.

[newkaren]

In my opinion something is going on with the food. If you want to loose weight, try to eat "natural" foods.

I've found that cutting out processed food has done wanders for my weight. I've been moving more and more to a paleo diet.

I work in an OR, and we do quiet a bit of bariatric surgery. The number of pt that come through with a BMI of 50+, yet are, at the same time malnourished is sad. I think people try, I honestly do. We are told to go fat free... OH no, make that low carb, oh no, just don't eat HFCS. The list goes on and on.

[votoshka]

Here is the point, I think. There is this idea that to lose weight you need to do more exercise, and yet, the most effective way to lose weight IS to cut your calories.

Ideally, of course, you would exercise while eating a sensible, healthy diet that was lower in calories than you consumed before, BUT just by cutting down your calories you WILL lose weight. More so than you would if you were to incorporate additional exercise.

To illustrate. A woman who does a fairly strenuous jog (9 miles/hour) will burn around 580 calories in that hour. So her overall energy deficit for the day (all else being equal) is 580 calories. If you compare that to someone who usually eats 3000 calories a day, and cuts down to 1500 calories, there's suddenly an energy deficit of 1500 calories.

Now who's going to lose weight faster??

It actually really annoys me when people say, "if you want to lose weight, just exercise more!". This rarely works, unless you do a LOT of exercise (which most people can't fit into their daily life...as you'd need to do several hours to get some sort of reasonable result).

Now I would never advocate a "Twinkie" diet, as that's just ridiculous. But I think the study proved a point .

And yes, I'm also aware that there is a LOT more to weight loss than a simple calories in vs calories out.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by votoshka

Here is the point, I think. There is this idea that to lose weight you need to do more exercise, and yet, the most effective way to lose weight IS to cut your calories.

Ideally, of course, you would exercise while eating a sensible, healthy diet that was lower in calories than you consumed before, BUT just by cutting down your calories you WILL lose weight. More so than you would if you were to incorporate additional exercise.

To illustrate. A woman who does a fairly strenuous jog (9 miles/hour) will burn around 580 calories in that hour. So her overall energy deficit for the day (all else being equal) is 580 calories. If you compare that to someone who usually eats 3000 calories a day, and cuts down to 1500 calories, there's suddenly an energy deficit of 1500 calories.

Now who's going to lose weight faster??

It actually really annoys me when people say, "if you want to lose weight, just exercise more!". This rarely works, unless you do a LOT of exercise (which most people can't fit into their daily life...as you'd need to do several hours to get some sort of reasonable result).

Now I would never advocate a "Twinkie" diet, as that's just ridiculous. But I think the study proved a point .

And yes, I'm also aware that there is a LOT more to weight loss than a simple calories in vs calories out.

Again, keep in mind that the point the study proved, is that if you eat less food, your body will start consuming itself. The only question is, what parts of your body do you want your body to consume? And considering that he burned more muscle, then he did fat, I'd say that the study didn't prove anything, but that eating crap, will not make you healthy, but will lower the number on the scale, which doesn't actually matter in the long run.

But, there is still a difference between burning calories and consuming less calories. Not to mention, the after effects of working out and the energy that goes into gaining and maintaining muscle, and improved metabolism. Your body still needs a certain amount of nutrition. Calories in calories out has been shown many times to be a myth.

And it's also a misnomer to say that you'd lose more weight by eating less, then by exercising. It depends on what you were eating, and how much of it, and the body you currently have. What types of workouts you plan on doing.
Why not just eat 500 calories instead of 1500? That's a 2500 deficit! You'll lose 2 lbs of your body, ever 3 days!

[lostinchaos]

I totally don't agree with the twinkie diet and I am looking to lose weight and hopefully quickly but I do not want to lose muscle if possible, I am eating less calories than I was and I am eating mainly raw food approx 70% raw,30% cooked. Am I going about this the right way, is there a way, with little or no exercise not to lose muscle mass??
I have hypothyroidism which is basically very little metabolism and cronic tiredness in my case, hence the little or no exercise. I would be extremely grateful for some advice on this.

[MightySunTzu]

Originally Posted by lostinchaos

I totally don't agree with the twinkie diet and I am looking to lose weight and hopefully quickly but I do not want to lose muscle if possible, I am eating less calories than I was and I am eating mainly raw food approx 70% raw,30% cooked. Am I going about this the right way, is there a way, with little or no exercise not to lose muscle mass??
I have hypothyroidism which is basically very little metabolism and cronic tiredness in my case, hence the little or no exercise. I would be extremely grateful for some advice on this.

Hi chaos,

Sorry to hear about the thyroid issue and i hope you are able to straiten that out. Your plan for eating from what i see of it sounds good as long as the calories are sufficient (or zero but not in between), but in terms of maintaining muscle it really is important to also get some kind of exercise.

[ScottCofer]

Just my 2 cents, of course ... calorie restriction has always done the trick for me. To make things as painless as possible I simplified the formula. I multiple my target weight by 11, and that is my calorie target per day.

Combined with moderate exercise a few times per week, this never fails to produce reasonable, steady weight loss for me ... perfect when I need to "tighten up" a bit.

[Razia]

I agree calorie restriction is necessary for weight loss as its the main reason for the weight gain so need to avoid it until weight is loss and after then also need to have in limit.